Climate Action Hotline 9.26.11

September 26, 2011

On September 15 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it would delay the release of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for greenhouse gases for power plants and oil refineries. Nineteen environmental leaders issued a letter directly to President Obama urging the administration to set a firm timeline to finalize greenhouse gas emissions standards for electric utilities. Signers, including leaders from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, insisted that the administration “announce and stick to a remedial schedule requiring proposal of these standards without further delay and completion of them as soon as possible in 2012.” Spokesperson for the National Wildlife Federation, Tony Iallonardo, explained that the letter’s signatories want “an explicit response from the president – not just from the EPA, but from the very top of the administration – that they’re going to commit to a schedule and hold to it.” To see full letter and signers, click here.

USCAN also directed its response to the delay in a letter to President Obama. Sent last Tuesday, with the signed support of 42 organizations including ActionAid USA, Interfaith Power and Light, Health Care Without Harm, World Wildlife Fund and many state and regional groups, the letter called on the President to ensure that the EPA swiftly commits to a schedule for proposing meaningful standards for carbon pollution from power plants. To see the USCAN letter and full list of signers, click here. As explained in Huffington Post Green last week, the controversy over the new standards continues to be the issue of “cost,” as industry leaders stand firmly on the belief that new rules will be economically detrimental. Studies, however, like the one published in February by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst continue to discredit this assumption, asserting that the EPA’s new pollution rule proposals for electric power companies will provide long-term economic benefits across the country, potentially creating 1.46 million jobs by 2015. A National Journalarticle released last week focused on Washington’s war over the EPA and highlighted the fact that “companies that spend money to install screens and scrubbers will actually be job creators.” A typical power-plant retrofit can employ, at the peak of the work, up to 1,000 engineers, construction workers, and other laborers.” Further evidence against the claim that regulations are economically harmful came on Wednesday, when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in a statement to Congressional Republicans, said that U.S. power plants are capable of adhering to new environmental rules without raising electricity costs or inhibiting job creation. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ public health expert, Elizabeth Martin Perera, expressed the growing frustration felt by the environmental community as a result of the recent anti-EPA measures. “We’ve just had such an onslaught of attacks in the House…The ozone decision started a very dangerous trend. We need to see Obama stand strong on this and to give the EPA the backing that it needs.”

Several Clean Air Act safeguards meant to ensure the quality of the air we breath were pushed back into the Congressional arena this week, and though a broad constituency of concerned groups continue fighting to defend them, the protections still face a barrage of attacks in the House. On Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee (HECC) passed H.R. 2250 by a vote of 36-14. If signed into law, the bill would rewrite sections of the Clean Air Act in order to allow industrial boilers to incinerate tires, plastics, chemically-treated wood, and other industrial wastes in their on-site plants with no requirements to control, monitor, or report the toxic pollution results. Additionally, the measure would remove current standards for the nation’s largest industrial boilers and indefinitely delay their replacement, allowing for the burning of dangerous wastes in facilities not designed or equipped to do so safely. By a vote of 33-12, the HECC also passed H.R. 2681, which would similarly contribute to harmful pollutants released into our air by eliminating current control requirements for cement plants and encourage the companies to burn the same dangerous wastes as industrial boilers with no control or monitoring. According to a press release by Earthjustice, the elimination of these standards would result in between 3,400 and 9,000 annual premature deaths due to respiratory disease alone. Earthjustice attorney James Pew expressed deep concern over the Committee’s passing of the bills, stating that if H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681 “are enacted into law, their cost will be borne by Americans across the country, but they will be felt most strongly in the communities that are already overburdened by toxic pollution…communities where childhood cancer and respiratory disease are already far too common.”

The first bill in Majority Leader Cantor’s list of attacks on public health safeguards, the TRAIN Act (HR 2401), which would block both the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, was passed on Friday by a House vote of 249-169.When first proposed by Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.), the TRAIN Act would have required a redundant economic study of the costs of the pollution rules facing the power sector yet would not look at the benefits of increased health protections. However, in the weeks since it was initially introduced, House Republicans have made additional proposals to have the new committee study, and essentially delay new toxic emissions limits for power plants, as well as block the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule entirely. On Tuesday of last week, the House Rules Committee said it would allow floor debate on Rep. Ed Whitfield’s (R-KY) amendment, which would add minimum delays for the rules beyond what the TRAIN Act already requires. Prior to the vote, the NRDC estimated that delaying these standards for merely one year would result in up to 25,300 deaths while the bill’s longer minimum periods of delay, 15 and 19 months, would result in up to 33,450 premature deaths.

The White House, in response to the proposed amendments, signaled its intentions to veto the legislation early last week and on Wednesday issued a formal “statement of administration policy,” emphasizing its pledge to stand its ground on EPA regulations under attack by Conservatives and industry groups. While the statement affirmed the Administration’s strong support for “careful analysis of the economic effects of regulation,” it asserted that “the approach taken in H.R. 2401 would slow or undermine important public health protections.” Democrats described (subscription required) Friday’s vote as the most brazen attack on environmental safeguards in the history of the Clean Air Act. Despite TRAIN’s passing in the House,the outlook is not entirely without optimism from those most vocally opposed to the measures. Senate Democrats vowed last week that the anti-EPA bill would be dead upon its arrival in the upper chamber. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif), Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman, explained that H.R. 2401 confirms House Republicans are “fighting for polluters and not for the people that they represent…And we’re here to call them out on it.”

Environmental, faith-based, development and conservation groups also came to the defense of the International Affairs Account, part of the 2012 fiscal year appropriations bill and which includes investments in international climate change finance. The bill, which underwent markup by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, determines the amount of funding to be invested in international action on global warming. 15 groups, including USCAN, NRDC, ActionAid US, and The Nature Conservancy, signed on to a letter urging the Senate to defend climate change finance investments which are “essential to promote national security and minimize instability, enhance economic opportunities for US businesses and workers, provide major cost savings by reducing disaster relief, protect critical forest areas and biodiversity, and preserve decades of US investments in global development.”

Anne-Elyse Wachur, USCAN Affiliate

Day of Action to Protect International Climate Finance Appropriations:

Background: Right now, funding for International Climate Finance for tropical forest protection, adaptation and clean technology (along with poverty-focused foreign assistance) is in extreme danger. The House State, Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee approved their FY2012 spending bill with deep cuts to International Climate Finance accounts that together would seriously gut these programs to support International action on climate change. For more see NRDC’s blog here. We expect greater support for these critical investments in the Senate and as the House and the Senate must agree on a budget for the next fiscal year (FY 2012) before the current Fiscal Year ends on September 30, it is critical that we act now to fight back against these devastating cuts.

Join today’s, September 26th National day of action to protect poverty focused (including International Climate Finance) assistance. Join activists from around the U.S. and tell Congress not to cut this vital life-saving assistance! Call the Capitol switchboard (202-224-3121) and ask for your member of Congress. If you aren’t sure who your representative is, click here to search by zip code.

Events

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on September 15 revealed that 83 percent of Americans believe in climate change, compared to 75 percent last year. According to the poll, about 72 percent of Republicans achnowledge global warming and 92 percent of Democrats do. Of the participants who believed in global warming, 71 percent are convinced that it is at least partially caused by humans. About 15 percent of voters see global warming as a primary concern. The poll also indicated that, although more Americans recognize climate change, those who are skeptical are increasingly sure of their convictions. Jon Krosnick, a political science professor at Stanford University, has suggested that the tendency of Republican presidential candidates to deny or criticize evidence of climate change has prompted people to reflect on their own views about global warming.

On September 16, the utility AES emerged as the winner of a decision over whether its insurer, Steadfast, was obligated to defend it in a lawsuit over climate change. AES is a defendent in the court case Kivalina v. Exxon Mobil Corp. et. al., in which the village of Kivalina, Alaska, accused AES and others of negligence because they knowingly emitted greenhouse gases, which contribute to climate change, and subsequent rising sea levels. While the larger Kivalina case is in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, AES sought a decision in Virginia courts on its insurer’s obligation. The decision not to obligate Steadfast hinged on the particular wording of the policy, according to Virginia Supreme Court Justice Bernard Goodwyn. “The relevant policies only require Steadfast to defend AES against claims for damages of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence or accident,” he wrote. Climate change did not meet the “accident” or “occurrence” definition in this instance, according to the ruling.

“24 Hours of Reality”, a new project led by former vice president Al Gore, illustrated the effects of climate change in 24 locations around the world through live online videos broadcast in 24 different time zones. The website’s counter indicated the program, which was available in 13 different languages, attracted 8.5 million viewers. The purpose of the videos was to raise awareness about the cause and effects of climate change, directly addressing climate change skeptics and deniers. The videos included an investigation into how climate change skeptics are funded and 200 new slides that outline the connection between climate change and increasingly intense natural disasters.

Over 30 million people were displaced last year by environmental and weather disasters in Asia, according to a recent Asian Development Bank (ADB) report. This number is expected to rise as disasters intensify due to impacts caused by climate change such as rising sea levels, floods, droughts, and food shortages. Problems associated with the influx of migration are estimated to cost around $60 billion. Areas that face the greatest challenges are low-lying regions such as the Maldives, where populations of entire islands have already been forced to move. The report states that rather than creating a new category of migrant people, climate change will likely influence existing migration factors and patterns, such as reinforcing the strong urbanization trend in the region. The ADB is currently working on a report that will outline potential policies that governments could consider to mitigate the impacts of climate change.

A new international agreement resulting in the renewal of the Kyoto Protocol seems unlikely, as the United States continues to refuse to take part in discussions, and Norway and Australia call for a delay in a new treaty. Todd Stern, the most prominent U.S. negotiator in international climate change talks, stated that most industrialized nations such as Russia, Japan, and Canada, oppose a second commitment period, and the United States will continue to refuse to participate in a new international treaty unless emerging economies will be obligated to reduce emissions. The Kyoto Protocol is scheduled to expire at the end of 2012, leaving no binding international agreement in its place, and no legal foundation for carbon trading schemes in its place. Developing countries have expressed discontent at the likely abandonment of the Protocol, which they believe to be the foundation of future negotiations on climate change.

Wealthy countries should eliminate $50 billion a year in fossil fuel subsidies, a leaked World Bank report said. The report, which was intended to be presented to the G20 finance ministers in November, also said that countries should spend their pledged climate change funds on financing carbon markets. It is unlikely that the funds which rich countries have pledged—$30 billion for 2010-2012 and $100 billion per year by 2020—will actually be provided. Removing fossil fuel subsidies could be a starting point though, according to the study.
The report further supports a carbon tax on the aviation and maritime industries. “A globally implemented carbon charge of $25/ton CO2 on fuel used could raise around $13 billion from international aviation and around $26 billion from international maritime transport in 2020, while reducing carbon dioxide emissions from each industry by around 5 to 10 percent.” Developing countries have become increasingly frustrated by rich nations failing to fulfill their climate finance pledges. “Rich nations cannot try and pass the buck to private companies who will be more interested in delivering high returns than meeting the needs of some of the world’s poorest people,” said Murray Worthy, a policy officer with the World Development Movement.

Australia and Norway have submitted a proposal to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat to finalize a new international climate framework by 2015, acknowledging that it likely will not happen in Durban this year. The proposal creates a timetable which begins with the negotiations in Durban and finishes with a legally-binding framework in 2015. Participants have praised the proposal as realistic. “There are a number of parties that would like to have a legally-binding agreement right away,” Jennifer Morgan of the World Resources Institute said. “But it’s good to have a vision on the table.” Russel Mills, global director of energy and climate change for Dow Chemical in Switzerland, and Martijn Wilder, a Sydney-based partner with law firm Baker & McKenzie, have noted that countries such as Australia, China and Korea should have their own emissions trading schemes in place by 2015, which will make international talks easier. “At the end of the day, it’s very important to have a timetable, but you have to have the political will to meet it,” Mr. Wilder said.

For the seventh time in eight years, Entergy Corporation has been named to the Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI). Compiled by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the CDLI is comprised of 55 companies from the S&P 500 who have been lauded for their disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions, commitments to emissions reductions, and their understanding of the role they play in climate change issues. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) maintains a database of over 3,000 organizations’ voluntarily disclosed greenhouse gas emissions and water-use information. According to Entergy, “It’s as simple as, despite the best intentions, what’s not measured doesn’t get done. The Carbon Disclosure Project serves a great need to raise our awareness of how much can be, and needs to be, done.”According to Paul Simpson, CEO of the Carbon Disclosure Project, “Companies that make the Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index have demonstrated good internal data management practices for understanding greenhouse gas emissions. They have shown a strong awareness of the business issues related to climate change, including climate-related risks and opportunities. Those organizations that give clear consideration to measuring and reporting on climate change issues will be best placed to capitalize on the opportunities from managing them.” Entergy, an integrated electric power company servicing Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, was also named to the Dow Jones Sustainability North America Index earlier this month.

According to a new study, global warming is changing fish populations in British waters. Cold water fish such as cod and haddock, that are common in British cuisine are growing scarcer as sea temperatures rise. Fish that tend to breed in warmer temperatures, such as hake, dab, and red mullet, are thriving. Analysis of 28 years of data that tracked 50 common species of fish revealed that 30 different species are affected by climate change. If this trend continues, the UK could see a greater diversity of options in fish, as warm water species tend to be more resilient to overfishing because they reproduce and grow faster than cold water species. However, the study also mentioned that the impact of ocean acidification is still unknown, and might negatively impact the availability of fish. The research was funded by the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment Research Council, and was published in Current Biology.

A recent study revealed that ocean layers deeper than 1,000 feet can absorb heat for up to a decade. This discovery provided insight into why global temperature does not rise consistently. The study was prompted by the realization that even though carbon emissions have climbed steadily in the past decade, the highest global temperatures on record in 1998 were not exceeded until 2010. By using a software tool known as Community Climate System Model to illustrate complex relationships between the atmosphere, land, oceans, and ice, scientists were able to create five simulations of global temperatures. The simulations projected that there would be periods of relatively stable temperatures that could last about a decade, during which heat energy is buried in deep oceanic layers.The study was published in Nature Climate Change.

Scientists have developed a new model for the allocation of conservation funding that could help save more species from climate change. The model uses both ecological and economic information to guide conservation investment, and can be applied to the conservation of a wide range of environments. The goal of the project was to address the loss of biodiversity due to climate change by making sure that the costs of conservation efforts are explicit, and money is not wasted on politicized decisions. The model considers many threats to biodiversity that are caused by climate change, such as wild fires and invasive species, to efficiently manage funds. The model was published in Nature Climate Change.

New research suggests that funding for new technology is one of the most cost effective ways to address climate change. Funding for new energy technologies with a high potential for cost reduction is more financially beneficial than investing in more familiar technologies. The research was conducted at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research using a computer simulation that processed data from the past 100 years. The analysis shows that companies are uncertain about long term profits from new technologies, and consumers have little incentive to pay more for electricity that was produced with new technology, so inferior and ultimately more expensive technology tends to dominate the market. Funding targeted at new technologie, such as solar energy, offshore wind power, and biomass energy, over a 30 year period, have a more positive cost-benefit ratio, compared to financial support for well-established technologies such as nuclear energy and hydroelectric power. The study was published in the journal Resource and Energy Economics.

A new paper, published in The Philospohical Transactions of the Royal Society, finds that more reliable and precise climate models can be formed using Traceable Radiometry Underpinning Terrestrial and Helio Studies (TRUTHS). Currently, the most reliable models depend on many complicated measurements, analysis, and projections. The data required to maintain these models must be taken from space, often over a long period of time. The costs and variability in such data collection methods result in varying climate models. The TRUTHS project would involve a single satellite capable of highly accurate measurements of incoming solar radiation that could track albedo, cloud cover, and solar radiation levels. TRUTHS would be the first satellite with the ability to accurately record and report data about climate while orbiting, and would be capable of measurements ten times more accurate than current satellites. So far, both the European Space Agency and NASA have expressed interest in the project.

A study conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) revealed that over one million pounds of black carbon (soot) was released into the atmosphere when the surface oil slicks from the BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill were burned. Over nine weeks, the burned oil emitted more black carbon into the atmosphere than the combined emissions of all ships normally traveling through the region during that time. Black carbon is harmful because it not only warms the atmosphere—it is the most light absorbing airborne particle—but also degrades air quality and is harmful to human health. Black carbon has also been associated with accelerated melting of Arctic ice. “Scientists have wanted to know more about how much black carbon pollution comes from controlled burning and the physical and chemical properties of that pollution. Now we know a lot more,” said the study’s lead author Anne Perring. The researchers found that the soot emitted was larger than normal ship emissions, which usually indicates that it will remain in the atmosphere for less time. However, it also reached higher altitudes which could affect where it eventually settles.

Cutting carbon emissions may no longer be sufficient to stay within the 2 degree temperature limit on global warming, a series of studies have predicted in the November issue of the journal Climate Change. According to one study, the atmosphere may be saturated with enough carbon to reach the 2 degree increase within 20 years, after which carbon must be removed to compensate for increased emissions. Such an approach, known as “negative emissions”, is getting more attention as emissions continue to grow and global temperatures rise. The atmosphere has already warmed by .8 degrees since before industrial times.
“If we want to stay below 2 degrees Celsius and possibly achieve 1.5 in the 22nd century then we’re not going to get around these negative emissions,” said Malte Meinshausen, lead author of one study. According to Meinshausen’s study, in order to achieve this, we must halt increases in carbon emissions within 5 years, and 3.5 billion tons have to be removed from the atmosphere annually by 2070. If emissions continue to rise after 2020, excess carbon must be removed from the atmosphere at a rate of 18 billion tons annually for about 100 years.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Decathlon is on the National Mall’s West Potomac Park in Washington, D.C. through October 2, 2011. The award-winning program challenges collegiate teams to design, build, and operate solar-powered houses that are cost-effective, energy-efficient, and attractive. The winner of the competition is the team that best blends affordability, consumer appeal, and design excellence with optimal energy production and maximum efficiency. Open to the public free of charge, visitors can tour the houses, gather ideas to use in their own homes, and learn how energy-saving features can help them save money today.

Please distribute Climate Change News to your colleagues. Permission for reproduction of this newsletter is granted provided that the Environmental and Energy Study Institute is properly acknowledged as the source. Past issues are available here. Free email subscriptions are available here. We welcome your suggestions, comments, and questions.

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) is a non-profit organization founded in 1984 by a bipartisan Congressional caucus dedicated to finding innovative environmental and energy solutions. EESI works to protect the climate and ensure a healthy, secure, and sustainable future for America through policymaker education, coalition building, and policy development in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, agriculture, forestry, transportation, buildings, and urban planning.

EESI’s work, including this free newsletter, is made possible by financial support from people like you. Please help us continue to make it available by making a secure, online donation today by clicking here or mailing a check to Environmental and Energy Study Institute; 1112 16th St NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036. Please contact Susan Williams at (202) 662-1887or see www.eesi.org/donate to find out more. Thank you for your support!

“The House today showed they have bought the false argument that we need to choose between protecting lives and creating jobs. Now we need the Senate and the President to protect our right to breathe.”